₦airaland Forum

RamessesIV:
Lol you people on this app,lol first you parrot afrocentric bs from books without credible backings...

Amujale: Again rhetoric.

Site one example of the sources that fit into that category and let me break you up with facts.

RamessesIV:
How many have you sited,you peddle up afrocentrist claim ...

It seems you are also suffering from amnesia.

You tell so many lies, peddle so much rhetoric that you cannot keep up with yourself.


And i am saying cite one example that fits into that category.

I expect nothing but rhetoric as your response.

RamessesIV:
..says the eurocentric who has "issues" with "sub"

Noone is taking you seriously anymore, you can jog along now.

These are the two questiond you have failed to answer because you know you are wrong and are an agent of chaos.


I dont want to hear anything from you untik you answer these two questions

1)What is the meaning of 'sub' as a prefix?

2) Does you refer to yourself as a 'negroid'?

RamessesIV:
Blah blah blah see I don't have time to repeat myself bro Racial classification is not so hard...

See guys, this is how to spot the agents.

One simple question he fails completely.

He has been running his mouth and cannot answer one simple question.

RamessesIV:
Lol you people on this app,lol first you parrot afrocentric bs from books without credible backings...

Again rhetoric.

Site one example of the sources that fit into that category and let me break you up with facts.

RamessesIV:
Lol I gave the etymology

You do not know the meaning of etymology.

RamessesIV:
It seems you are just a sentimental racist who have no time for proven evidence but afrocentric claims...

That is what someone brainwashed into Eurocentrism would say when their argument has bern defeated.

They will begin to make nonsensical remarks.

Everything i am writing has either been sourced or is within itself its own evidence.

I am a Afrocentred historian and a researcher, some of my material is my own personal scholarship amd others i source from other academics, historians and scholars.

You are a low-esteemed clout chaser that deals in rhetoric.

Show me one thing i have written regarding the fact that the term 'negroid' has always been derogatory that isnt irrefutable.

RamessesIV:
Did you even read what I wrote...

Yes, i read what you wrote and everyone could see that it was wrong.

Based soley on nonsensical rhetoric.

Amujale:
Etymology: the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning.

The story you gave is not the etymology of the term 'Caucasoid', rather its an invalid ramble that has no logical link to anything other than nothing.

You cannot answer a simple question.

You do not know the difference between rhetoric and etymology.

RamessesIV:
And how many times have told you yes

Yes, what.

I want you to write it clearly for us to see.

You suffer from inferiority complex that is beyond anything i have ever experienced before

You have spent the whole time talking down on yourself and uplifting other people.

See no hiding no, cloud chasin, no nothing.

Clear and simple.

I want to show the thread how you are suferring from an acute state of Stockholm syndrome.

I do not subscribe to the term 'negroid', i refer to myself as an African. Very clear and crisp.


I will ask you slowly this time.

I ask you again since according to you some humans are meant to be classified as negroid.

Does you consider yourself a 'caucasoid' or a 'negroid"? simple question.

RamessesIV:
Why should I refer to myself as "Caucasoid"

According to racial classifications am I "Caucasoid"

You tell me.

Let me try again.

Does you refer to yourself as a Negroid?

It isnt a trick question.

Let me attempt to assist you, i do not refer to myself as a Negroid, i refer to myself as an Africansic.

A old adage says:

"A kii go titi ki a maa feran ara eni"

Interpretion:
"One would never be so foolish to not want to wish well on ones own self"

Just because one reads in a book that some Eurocentric numskull pseudo-scientist came up with a nonsensical classification using a term that has always been derogatory shouldnt mean that we are to accept that as our truth.

No i reject that completely and utterly.

I want to put this discussion to bed.

RamessesIV:
Meaningless story lol I just gave you the etymology of the term "Caucasoid"

No you did not.

Etymology: the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning.

The story you gave is not the etymology of the term 'Caucasoid', rather its an invalid ramble that has no logical link to anything other than nothing.

As i stated earlier.

The true etymology is rooted in the 'Caucasus Mountains'

Caucasus - Caucasoid - Caucasian

That is where the term has its origin, and as such, is the accurate historical development of the term and its meaning.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

RamessesIV:
I already explain the origin of the word caucasoid being used as a racial classification is there go back and see it

Yes based on racial classificiations

I wasnt asking you based on anything, neither was i asking you for a nonsensical and meaningless story.

My question was, what is the etymology for the term 'Caucasoid'.

Does you refer to yourself as a Caucasoid or a Negroid?

RamessesIV:
"Poorly read on history" lol says the person who believes all people grouped understand"caucasoid" came from caucasus mountain...

I am 100% certain that the term Caucasoid is rooted from the Caucasus Mountains.

Give us your logical reason where the term Caucasoid is meant to have originated

Lets cut to the chase.

Does you refer to yourself as a Negroid?

RamessesIV:
Note the horn of africa is the proposed exist of early modern humans and entry of another set of people,so their 40% estimated caucasoid genes is mostly from the neolithic era.

Eventhough i dont subscribe to the notion of early human being different from the modern ones.

Humans have always been the same, its technology that has changed.

However, note taken.

The history of the Caucasoid begins during the stone age, whilst Africans had already experienced hundreds of thousands of years of existence prior to that.

Its important to note that the current Eurocentric model of history doesnt account for
the parts of world history that doesnt involve the Caucasoid.

What some would tend to deem pre history is infact major parts of Africansic history.

Noone is in control, possess the qualification to address the narratives of African history except for the African

RamessesIV:
horners are classified as Caucasoid..

Assuming you are well learnt in African history, that wouldnt suprise you.

Amujale:
Who are the original 'horners'?

The demographic of that regions has changed hands more than 100 times in the last 2,100 years.

Furthermore, learn to make use of the term 'South of the Sahara', opposed to 'Sub Sahara'.

Know thyselves.

South of the Sahara ✅

Sub Sahara ✖

The communities 'South of the Sahara' arent sub to anyone or anything nevermind the 'Sahara'.

For further discussion, follow the link here:

https://www.nairaland.com/5795996/african-origin-civilisation

Eventhough history teaches us of an Arab, Greek and Roman presence in those regions.

The horners consist mainly of the Barbari, Eritreans, Ethiopians and the Somalians

So there should be no suprise that we will find Caucasoid amongst them, especially the Barbari.

RamessesIV:
In addition, the most beautiful humans were reputed to be the stereotypical "Circassian beauties" and the Georgian people; both Georgia and Circassia are in the Caucasus region.

You are alone with that kind of Eurocentric understanding, as i for one doesnt subscribe to that nonsense.

The most beautiful humans are the Africansic.

Furthermore, you are poorly read on history. The Caucasus Mountains is where the cave dwellers originate.

Theres a huge amount of missing information that i neednt divulged here, however, what is never in dispute is that everone came out of Africa.

It is supposed that they some how lost there pigmentation and became melanin passive.

The caucasoid as they themselves allude to at a certain point in time found themselves in the Caucasus Mountain. i.e Krubera Cave of the Western Caucasus range.

It is from here that they later dispersed into Asia and Europe.

These stock of Asians and Europeans have been around for no longer than 10,000 years as scientific analysis suggest.

Go and read a proper and genuine history textbook.

RamessesIV:
Negroid refers to racial classification

You consider yourself a Negroid?

RamessesIV:
Negroid refers to racial classification,we have countries that uses this word,and black was also used offensively...

Who concocted these so-called classifications?

You dont know what you are on about.

Due to the history of the term 'Negroid', it has always been toxic and as such has no place inside African history.

Instead of you to learn, you are too busy trying to defend a Eurocentric version.

I dont know what melanin symbolises to you, for me and for the ancient Africanssic melanin denotes divinity, pure essence, originality e.t.c

You can take your Eurocentricism and throw it inside the ashcan of history.

Here we deal with African history from the perspective of an African.

All other hypothesis are null and void

RamessesIV:
This is not correct,"caucasians" don't come from the Caucasus mountain this was first used in 1780's...

The Caucasus Mountains are a mountain system at the intersection of Europe and Asia. Stretching between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, it surrounds the eponymous Caucasus region and is home to Mount Elbrus, the highest peak in Europe.

Is this where the term Caucausoid originates?

You arguments are baseless and void of common sense.

Are you saying that that the Caucasus Mountain isnt the root for the term "Caucausoid"?

If so, show us where the term originates.

RamessesIV:
And today egypt is part of north africa and connected to the middle east via sinai,these are modern geographical terms

As i said earlier, its either West Asia or North Africa.

There's no such geographical region known as Middle East.

RamessesIV:
Lol north africa is not part of the middle east only Sinai,parts of west asia is what makes up the "middle east" and it's called that till today.

I guess its a waste of time trying to explain that to you.

All i will say is that at a certain point in time, not very long ago, people could trek from Egypt to Jordan.

RamessesIV:
Caucasoid but negroid is wrong again as I said I don't do sentiments if i was,i will refuse the term "africa" and "black"

For the umteenth time, Caucasoid is correct because the current stock of Arabs an Europeans came from the Caucasus mountains.

Negroid is wrong and invalid because there is no where in history that the term wasnt used in a derrogatory manner.

Instead of Negroid, replace with some other acceptable term. i.e African, Black, Kush, Nubian e.t.c

RamessesIV:
saying middle east is middle of the desert or east,

In case you havent figured that out already, Middle East doesnt make sense.

You cannot be in the Middle of the East with no particular coordinates.

East of where?

Middle East is either properly known as West Asia or North Africa.

RamessesIV:
Sub is not subordinate

Show me in the lexicon where it says that the prefix sub- doesnt mean subordinate.

You dont know what your on about.

Moving on now.

RamessesIV:
And again I repeat I am using negro in the terms of racial classification regardless of it's history this is 2020,not every black person is negroid,not every african is black

And again you are wrong.

There are no such thing as race classification.

As there's no such thing as multi-race.

Theres only one race of significance, they call it the Human Race.

Even if we was to go along with the so-called classification, the term 'Negroid' is:

Invalid.
Null and Void.
Squashed
Quashed

Rather than using such a term, you would be better using African, Kush, Ethiopian, Nubian e.t.c these are all the terminologies that foreigners used to refer to blacksic.


Again lets not derail this thread.

For further discussion, follow the link here:

https://www.nairaland.com/5795996/african-origin-civilisation

RamessesIV:
Please go and check the history of the word "sub-saharan"

I dont need to check the history of anything.

'sub - ' is a gramatical construct, a prefix, hence it doesnt matter what it history says, its meaning is self explanatory.

Ok you sound as though you are justifying the use of the term when i just showed you that its wrong.

The devil is in the detail.

What is the meaning of 'sub -'

Do you believe that the communities living 'South of the Sahara' are subordinate to the 'horners'?


Lets cut to the chase.


Lets continue the discussion here:

https://www.nairaland.com/5795996/african-origin-civilisation

RamessesIV:
again negro was the word for black it became derogatory cause of the mentality at that time..

Wrong, the term was originally a derrogatory term from the off.

How old is the Spanish language?

The term that was originally used was ater, furvus, pullejaceus, pulleiaceus, carbo e.t.c

The noun was always CARBO

This particulare term nigrans became negreos and was juxtaposed by the Spanairds during the era of the Conquistadors and it continued to be used in a derrogatory throughout the over 2000 year slave trades, Colonisation, Jim Crow and today.


There was never a time in history that the term Negro meant anything positive.

Is that correct?

If that is correct, then what is the justification of using it today?

Caucasoid however, isnt a derrogatory term, its a valid description, a kind of identification similar to Nubian(African) or Mongoloid.

RamessesIV:
Again this has been debunked,there is also an exact copy using india instead of africa,thomas macaulay didn't give this speech and he wasn't a british officer in africa but india.

I have heard of the rebuttal, whether he was reffereing to India or the continent of Africa, the message resonates the same.

The fact that the name Africa sufficed is why i have to bring this up.

The Eurocentric warmongers used the same concepts everywhere they visited.

......

RamessesIV:
...sub-means beyond

Learn to make use of the term 'South of the Sahara' oppose to 'Sub Sahara', the communities in these regions arent 'sub' to anyone or anything, nevermind the 'Sahara'.

RamessesIV:
...sub-means beyond

Show me the dictionary you are using.

sub-
/sʌb,səb/
prefix
prefix: sub-
1.
at, to, or from a lower level or position.
"subalpine"
lower in rank.
"subaltern"
of a smaller size; of a subordinate nature.
"subculture"
2.
somewhat; nearly; more or less.
"subantarctic"
3.
denoting subsequent or secondary action of the same kind.
"sublet"
4.
denoting support.
"subvention"
5.
CHEMISTRY
in names of compounds containing a relatively small proportion of a component.
"suboxide"

RamessesIV:
No one calls Africa a country,educated people know Africa is a continent,people all over the world call every asian person "chinese",see why I said you are being sentimental

Did you read the statement i posted earlier?

Here, now take the time to read it properly.

Did Thomas Macaulay incorrectly refer to Africa as a country a couple of times in his 1835 address?

Or am i making it up?

RamessesIV:
white race black race both were created the same time for the same purpose,even negroid is still use till today

I get your point, eventhough i maintain the view that due to the history of that term, it remain toxic.

For clarification, there was never a time that the term wasnt used as a derrogatory term, and that includes whilst in its maiden language of Spanish.

Perform a thorough perusal and you will realise that the term was created in the 1500's during the era of the conquistadors.